Scale

[Ted Sturges]

I'm sure this topic has been widely covered, but watching the Kapalua golf over the weekend really caught my attention.  I have never been to Kapalua, so my only experience is what one can see from TV.  But the scale of that place appears ENORMOUS.  My question is this....what other courses in the world illustrate the magnitude of the scale presented at Kapalua?  Are there any?


TS

[Thomas Dai]

Scale and space.
See - https://golfclubatlas.com/courses-by-country/england/royal-north-devon/

and
https://golfclubatlas.com/courses-by-country/england/minchinhampton-golf-club-old-course/
I’m sure there are others.

Atb

[Tim Passalacqua]

For me, Olympic and Yale stand out for scale.  Geez......I should probably include Mammoth Dunes and Streamsong Black.

[Mark_Fine]

Ted,
This is a very interesting but very broad topic.  Are you talking about the scale (size) of the property, the long range views, the separation between holes, the size of the design features,...?  I am assuming since you mentioned The Plantation Course you are talking mostly about the size of the property and the distant views.  If that is the case, you should see a course like Nanea on The Big Island which sits on twice the acreage.  The views are simply amazing and you can see forever.  I have described it as Sand Hills in a lava flow.  Speaking of Sand Hills, that course feels like you are in the middle of endless golf holes in every direction as far as you can see. 


Tim,
Yale would stand out for me as the scale of some of the design features more so than the scale of the property.  As far as Olympic; not sure about that one though the removal of many of the trees has opened it up but many of the holes are still quite tight and confined. 


Stanley Thompson was great at using scale with his features as he needed to as many of his sites were so vast and dramatic that his features needed to be sizable to fit in with that scale. 


As far as features, architects can use a large bunker to make it look/feel much closer than it really is and vice versa with a smaller one.  Same with green sizes, hollows, mounds,...  Lots to discuss on a topic of scale. 

[Tim Martin]

The scale on the inward holes at Yale is greater than the outward set. They are routed so that there aren’t many glances at anything other than the hole you are playing. I am also impressed with the scale of Salem CC north of Boston.

[mike_malone]

I have been impressed by the scale at Rolling Green since the trees were removed. Slopes accentuate scale.

[Mark_Fine]

Mike,
Isn't it amazing how the beauty of the topography of properties that got cluttered with trees come to life when the across course views, etc are re-opened back up!  You should see the before and afters at a course we have been working on called Hanover CC in Abbottstown - Wow!  I do need to get back down to see Rolling Green. 

[Kalen Braley]

I think we could queue up and offer up course after course that seems to have good scale.  I've already thought of 5 off the top of my head.

Perhaps it would be more interesting to discuss one that doesn't and detail what is seemingly off about it...

[Mark_Fine]

Kalen,
Yes we could pick course after course, Oakmont before and after immediately comes to mind.  However, I see the value in a topic like this as way to explain and discuss the concept of scale in a generic fashion (what do you think of when you think of scale) so we all can then think about it as it applies to our own/local courses that we play.

[Michael Felton]

Depending on what you mean, Sunningdale is an example of a course where you can only really see the hole you're playing and nothing else. Walton Heath is a good example of a course where you can basically see everything and the sheer number of golf holes surrounding you is amazing. Not much of a better feeling than being out there late on a summer afternoon on your own with the course to yourself. Happens surprisingly often.

[Tom_Doak]

Ted:


There aren't many places that have anything close to the same scale as those downhill holes at Kapalua, looking twenty miles across the water [or whatever it is] to Molokai.  Fishers Island?  Rock Creek?  St. Enodoc?  Tara Iti?


One of the reasons everything is so big at Kapalua is because it sits way up on the hill, and those big downhill holes necessitate a number of big uphill holes that aren't as highly regarded.  [They're decent holes, and it wasn't like there was a better solution that stayed on the flatter ground, but they are politely ignored by most observers.]


I'm not sure what sense it makes to talk about "scale" -- everybody is impressed by it, but you either have it or you don't.  It's certainly one of those things that a lot of the great older courses didn't have, and didn't really need.

[Jerry Kluger]

Mammoth Dunes would certainly be one of the grandest scales I have ever seen a golf course on - fairways are incredibly wide and the green complexes are very cool with some really awkward shots from the wrong angle.

[Paul Rudovsky]

Bethpage Black IMO has a huge scale...to quote the great line from "Young Frankenstein", ..."everything is larger".  Only parallel fairways are #10 and #11...and the distance from the left edge of the 10th fairway to the left side of the 11th is about 55-60 yards at their closest point.  Bunkers "feel" huge as well.

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
I agree about the scale of the long range views (you have them or you don't) but do you just equate scale with distant views.  Also do you think a course like Cypress Point has scale (it has some long range views for sure)?  I was talking about another aspects of scale like bunker size.  For example, I think the greenside bunker on #9 is about scale. A small pot bunker would probably look out of scale there.  We both worked on Oyster Harbors in MA.  Do you remember that massive fairway bunker on the par four 13th hole.  Why did Ross build something so enormous there?  Another example of scale are the tiny fairway bunkers that Hanse used at times at Rustic Canyon.  It is amazing what one little bunker 20 sq ft in size can do psychology to a golfer if placed well.  I think he was thinking about scale (size) when he did that.  Don't you use different scale/size features to alter depth perception and distance,..,?  Of course the site can dictate things as well as I noted with many Thompson courses.  I guess I am talking about the thought process behind feature sizes.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Although a discussion on “scale” can take many forms, Paul’s post is on the money by talking about Bethpage Black: “everything is larger”


Often I think many of the best courses hide whether they are large or small exactly because everything is “in scale”. The best courses don’t appear to e.g. have huge greens, because the rest of the course is built along the same lines. Courses with small greens also feel more correct when everything else is a little smaller. The golfer doesn’t really realise that the scale of one is vastly different to the other when the features are “in scale”.


I know I always take things back to links courses (I know these best) but which do you think are of a large scale and which do you think are of a small scale?

[Adam Lawrence]

The most obvious example of the scale of something being off, imo, is the eighteenth at Trump Aberdeen. It's a 650 yard hole with (iirc) twenty bunkers, and the tee is so damned high up the hole looks small and poky from it. Quite an amazing thing really.

[Jurrian van der Vaart]

The most obvious example of the scale of something being off, imo, is the eighteenth at Trump Aberdeen. It's a 650 yard hole with (iirc) twenty bunkers, and the tee is so damned high up the hole looks small and poky from it. Quite an amazing thing really.

Maybe instead of using scale, which most people equate to long views and stuff thats big, it's more about proportion. Loads of "lil" bunkers on a "big" hole feels instinctively off, just like a massive greencomplex on a short hole feels out of place.

The downhill holes at Kapalua are a great way of using those proportions to make something look great, where Aberdeen #18 does the opposite. C&C are great with those visual aesthetics, dare I say "framing"

For instance, to me, #8 green at St. Andrews always feels terribly off-scale (1600 m2), whereas the large #11 green feels like it fits like a glove (1100 m2). Both however will put you off-balance.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Yes, true - what I’m referring to is more proportion than scale. If all elements of the course are in proportion, it is often harder to determine whether it is of a large scale or a smaller one.

[Joel Pear]

The one time I played Erin Hills, I was truly impressed with the scale of it.  The property seemed immense.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Agree with Ally, proportion has something to do with it.  In general, the more expansive the views and actual available space, the bigger greens, tees and bunkers need to be, and vice versa.  Always exceptions, of course.


It's not always long views that create scale.  Many step on the first tee of Wilderness at Fortune Bay in MN and are wowed with the scale.  It's 600 yards, two fw wide, set in mature northern forest.  The locals were so used to seeing MN courses with narrow fw to save clearing cost and irrigation, that just seeing an almost driving range like scale hole in front of them was shocking and impressive.

[Tom_Doak]

Don't you use different scale/size features to alter depth perception and distance,..,? 

My associates do a lot of this in the shaping process.  I don't really think about it too much in advance; deciding on the shape and size of features on site makes the process pretty instinctive.

[mike_beene]

To me Muirfield and Oakmont present breathtaking scale when you first see them from the entrance but play more narrow. Kapalua feels big the whole way other than hole 15 and 9. The Broadmore, besides being impossible to spell, has some big feeling scale on the lower Ross holes. The mountains contribute.

[Paul Rudovsky]

Cape Kidnappers

[Richard Fisher]

To Ally's point about scale at the seaside, I would cite RStG Sandwich as perhaps the supreme example of a large-scale links, and maybe Aberdovey as a fine example of the intimate converse (although the latter does open out a bit at its very far end). Prior to 1960 I guess we would all have cited the celebrated 'cat's cradle' of a course at RIoWGC Bembridge (NLE).

[Michael Felton]

To Ally's point about scale at the seaside, I would cite RStG Sandwich as perhaps the supreme example of a large-scale links, and maybe Aberdovey as a fine example of the intimate converse (although the latter does open out a bit at its very far end). Prior to 1960 I guess we would all have cited the celebrated 'cat's cradle' of a course at RIoWGC Bembridge (NLE).

I was thinking of RSG as well. I think 9 and 10 are the only two holes where you could wind up playing a shot from the same place and both would have to be pretty wild. What I think is interesting is to compare that with its two neighbours - RCP and Princes. Neither is a "small" course, but both just feel so much smaller in comparison with RSG. The dunes at RSG are other worldly - out around 4, 5, 6 the land gets very wild. But I don't think that's what drives it. The land on the new course at Ballybunion is absolutely crazy, but that doesn't have a feeling of vast like RSG does.